Be a Supporter!
JudgeDredd
JudgeDredd
  • Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 5th, 2011 @ 08:21 AM Reply

At 4/4/11 11:12 PM, Elfer wrote: If we're going to use Fukushima as a benchmark for the safety of nuclear power, it's worth noting that the damage done by the nuclear incidents that occurred there pale in comparison to the disaster that it took to cause them.

It's easier to count missing people, than child deformity caused by radiation. It's easier to count lost homes, than future financial damage caused by people not wanting to live within 100km of Fukushima or some other nuke plant. Ultimately, you're really comparing a natural disaster, with a man-made one, so it's an unfair example, but even if we say "many trillions of yen", then that's what could have been spent on alternative energy.


Furthermore, different types of power work for different countries. On the island of Honshu, you can never be a hundred miles inland. In North America, you can easily be hundreds of miles from the coast.

Japan is fine for wave, wind, geo, bio, and surely lot's of newer solutions to coe. Nuclear is a bit of a soft option for a presently very hi-tech country like Japan, despite their huge population and such difficulties in the past.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 5th, 2011 @ 10:18 PM Reply

At 4/5/11 08:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It's easier to count missing people, than child deformity caused by radiation. It's easier to count lost homes, than future financial damage caused by people not wanting to live within 100km of Fukushima or some other nuke plant. Ultimately, you're really comparing a natural disaster, with a man-made one, so it's an unfair example, but even if we say "many trillions of yen", then that's what could have been spent on alternative energy.

I'm just saying, the country basically had to shake apart and sink into the ocean for this kind of nuclear incident to happen. Containment and response to mitigate the effects you mentioned is a lot better than it used to be, and I'd be very surprised if even the extended effects of the incident approach the level of the immediate effects of the earthquake and tsunami.

Apart from that, my main point is that a lot of groups (including the NDP, a major political party here in Canada) have been using this incident as an argument against nuclear power in North America, even though the conditions that caused the incident aren't really feasible here.

Japan is fine for wave, wind, geo, bio, and surely lot's of newer solutions to coe. Nuclear is a bit of a soft option for a presently very hi-tech country like Japan, despite their huge population and such difficulties in the past.

Yeah, for Japan it seems like nuclear is just leftover technology that doesn't really fit the country's geography in terms of risk. It's an attractive option because it's realitvely clean under normal conditions and has a small footprint, but in an area susceptible to this kind of disaster, it's really not ideal.

Atomic energy really gets a bad rap for the "boogeyman" aspect, but for a lot of countries, it could be a very useful and important energy source for the next hundred years. This is sort of a pet issue of mine, because in my opinion, nuclear power is a really good option for Canada, but a lot of people have a very poor understanding of the issues involved.

JudgeDredd
JudgeDredd
  • Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 5th, 2011 @ 10:51 PM Reply

For China and other countries it allows an opportunity to review their Nuclear Energy strategy before barreling into it. For instance, Fukushima's reactors had two types of backup systems, passive in one reactor, and active in the others, yet both failed. So now they're talking about backup diversity in newer reactors, which is more common sense approach, even thou it costs more.

Not to mention putting storage pools of depleted rods right above working reactors. Who's dumb idea was that? Are they doing this just to save money? Is it a complexity issue to have them stored seperately? These questions need answering, cos just saying "don't fret, they're old designs" doesn't really explain why TEPCO continued running such an obsolete configuration some 40 years after they were first designed, and moreover, ignoring warnings of the potential (vindicated) risks of doing so.

Senjo
Senjo
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 12:11 AM Reply

1. Fission > fusion in terms of energy output
2. Fusion is safer than fission
3. Don't build reactors near volcanoes, fault lines, coast lines, preserves, lakes, rivers, aquifers, densely populated areas, areas prone to wildfire, areas prone to stampede/wildlife interaction or in places where people can see the cooling towers cause they freak out and think that the steam is really radioactive gases...
4. Educate the freakin public about nuclear energy, how it actually is highly safe when not placed in or near the areas listed above, and that the containers that they put waste in are also freaking indestructible.
5. Don't be retarded and build power plants and not modify / upgrade them in more than 15 years, cause otherwise you get three mile Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which were all caused by either natural disasters or outdated equipment.

Need I say outdated equipment one more time?

FUNKbrs
FUNKbrs
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 09:57 AM Reply

Sorry, just got to kick the fire a little bit here...

You guys do know that petroleum is a known carcinogen, right? The main problem with nuclear radiation is that small doses can cause cancer.... but so can exposure to gasoline fumes.

It's written right there on the side of the pump, too.

OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!


My band Sin City ScoundrelsOur song Vixen of Doom
HATE.
Because 2,000 years of "For God so loved the world" doesn't trump 1.2 million years of "Survival of the Fittest."

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 10:39 AM Reply

At 4/6/11 12:11 AM, Senjo wrote: 1. Fission > fusion in terms of energy output

Fusion is supposed to be nearly unlimited in terms of energy output, but we obviously haven't gotten to the point yet where it would be viable.

2. Fusion is safer than fission

This is really speculation at this point, but for now, I'll agree with you.

3. Don't build reactors near volcanoes, fault lines, coast lines, preserves, lakes, rivers, aquifers, densely populated areas, areas prone to wildfire, areas prone to stampede/wildlife interaction or in places where people can see the cooling towers cause they freak out and think that the steam is really radioactive gases...

Here's the 2 issues about your statement. First off, in a land like Japan, where land space is very limited, they had really no choice but to put it there, and we obviously know that Japan is in an active sesmic zone to begin with. In many other countries, this isn't really a problem per se, because they have a lot more land to work with than Japan. Second, they need to put nuclear plants near a water source, because it's water that cools the nuclear rods, which creates steam, which powers the turbines.

4. Educate the freakin public about nuclear energy, how it actually is highly safe when not placed in or near the areas listed above, and that the containers that they put waste in are also freaking indestructible.

Agreed.

5. Don't be retarded and build power plants and not modify / upgrade them in more than 15 years, cause otherwise you get three mile Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which were all caused by either natural disasters or outdated equipment.

The problem with Fukushima isn't really the equipment per se, it's was a triple whammy effect of the earthquake, tsunami, and the fact that both backup systems failed. The materials that built the plant were up to some quality, unlike Chernobyl, where it was Soviet made with little regulation, {in other words, utter shit.}

As for the Tokyo Electric Power Company {TEPCO for short}, these guys are under some serious hot water, {no pun intended} and you know they're going to get screwed, when the Japanese people are actively protesting them for they way they have handled this, and I don't blame the people one bit. In a socially conservative country like Japan, when you see people protest like that against TEPCO, you know that they are fucked 6 ways from Sunday.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
JudgeDredd
JudgeDredd
  • Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 11:22 AM Reply

At 4/6/11 09:57 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Sorry, just got to kick the fire a little bit here...

OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Okay fuck it, let's make nuke rocket ships. Getting off this planet is higher priority than worrying about a little radiation in the atmosphere.

It's not like petroleum is gonna last another 50 years anyhow. We're pretty much fucked unless we start mining the moon of all it's Helium3. Should have a decent war over the moon while we're at it!

*popcorn*

The year is 2050, China & America have sucked the Earth dry...

Senjo
Senjo
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 02:58 PM Reply

At 4/6/11 10:39 AM, orangebomb wrote:
At 4/6/11 12:11 AM, Senjo wrote: 1. Fission > fusion in terms of energy output
Fusion is supposed to be nearly unlimited in terms of energy output, but we obviously haven't gotten to the point yet where it would be viable.

2. Fusion is safer than fission
This is really speculation at this point, but for now, I'll agree with you.

3. Don't build reactors near volcanoes, fault lines, coast lines, preserves, lakes, rivers, aquifers, densely populated areas, areas prone to wildfire, areas prone to stampede/wildlife interaction or in places where people can see the cooling towers cause they freak out and think that the steam is really radioactive gases...
Here's the 2 issues about your statement. First off, in a land like Japan, where land space is very limited, they had really no choice but to put it there, and we obviously know that Japan is in an active sesmic zone to begin with. In many other countries, this isn't really a problem per se, because they have a lot more land to work with than Japan. Second, they need to put nuclear plants near a water source, because it's water that cools the nuclear rods, which creates steam, which powers the turbines.

4. Educate the freakin public about nuclear energy, how it actually is highly safe when not placed in or near the areas listed above, and that the containers that they put waste in are also freaking indestructible.
Agreed.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that you can transort water anywhere you want. :\
The same way you can transport gasoline.
Of course, it would be expensive, but you have to think about this.
- Transport Water and lessen the risk of damaging water supplies
- Build reactors near lakes, rivers, bodies of water and risk having a fallout in water supplies and/or being damaged by natural disasters.

FUNKbrs
FUNKbrs
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 05:14 PM Reply

At 4/6/11 11:22 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:
Okay fuck it, let's make nuke rocket ships. Getting off this planet is higher priority than worrying about a little radiation in the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pro pulsion

Apparently the greatest minds in science agree with you there.


It's not like petroleum is gonna last another 50 years anyhow. We're pretty much fucked unless we start mining the moon of all it's Helium3. Should have a decent war over the moon while we're at it!

*popcorn*

The year is 2050, China & America have sucked the Earth dry...

... and space pirates are interdicting precious shipments of H3. ..

The beauty of a nuke reactor as a power supply in space is that you can actually afford to wait a decade for a refuel... something you could never do with traditional fueling.

I am so amazingly behind shipping people to the asteroid belt to mine for rare elements it's not even funny.

If we could get Internet Wi-Fi in space (which wouldn't be THAT hard with a constant stream of ships going out there) there wouldn't even be much of a downside to going.

We live in an infinite universe. We need to stop limiting our thinking to how to survive indefinitely on a planet that has a limited lifespan as determined by our sun, and start figuring out how to take advantage of the more than ample resources available in space.

And who WOULDN'T want to ride a nuke rocket into deep space?


My band Sin City ScoundrelsOur song Vixen of Doom
HATE.
Because 2,000 years of "For God so loved the world" doesn't trump 1.2 million years of "Survival of the Fittest."

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 6th, 2011 @ 05:49 PM Reply

At 4/6/11 05:14 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Apparently the greatest minds in science agree with you there.

Orion Drives ftw.

And who WOULDN'T want to ride a nuke rocket into deep space?

Well, to be fair, in this instance, it would be like riding the hardest single-stroke engine ever.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

JudgeDredd
JudgeDredd
  • Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 9th, 2011 @ 03:56 PM Reply

At 4/6/11 09:57 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Sorry, just got to kick the fire a little bit here...
You guys do know that petroleum is a known carcinogen, right? The main problem with nuclear radiation is that small doses can cause cancer.... but so can exposure to gasoline fumes.

Okay, speaking of fire...

When BP had that wee spill in the Gulf, they were forced by the US Govt to pay some 20 BILLION (or more) for cleanup and compensation for lost income to businesses; fishing, tourism, etc.

Is TEPCO going to pay compensation to Japanese fishermen, food producers, house owners, lost tourism, etc?

So far i've only heard that Japan's major banks are gonna LEND TEPCO about 25 BILLION to repair their network and clean up the mess at the Fukushima plant. That's 25 BILLION not being spent on people who have lost everything due the tsunami. TEPCO is something like the 5th biggest Power company in the world. So where's the money? Where's their accident insurance cover? Why do they need to BORROW 25 BILLION the first time they have an accident?

Note: BP made an immediate commitment to compensate people. I haven't heard TEPCO make any such commitment.

In fact most governments (the UK for one) make provisions that nuke power companies should not be held responsible for the costs of cleaning up after an accident, simply because they can't reasonably be expected to handle such a massive expense. This differs with greatly petroleum accidents.

Moreover, for the purposes of cleanup, BP sprayed coagulant to stop the oil surfacing, and of the oil that did surface, they collected or burnt a large proportion of it.

TEPCOs only solution so far is to spill vast amounts highly radioactive water directly into Japan's COASTAL fisheries. That pretty much shows that they have no way of dealing with radioactive waste. They had no procedure for collecting it, and are only now scrambling for a solution. They just weren't prepared for any accident.

So while oil companies are often required to spend large amounts on things like accident insurance and ready procedures for cleanup, the nuke power industry considers such things as a kind of taboo, as if it's best not even thought about.

joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 10th, 2011 @ 04:33 AM Reply

For fuck's sakes, why hadn't anyone listened to me about a new source of fuel for radioactive plants: thorium? It's safe, you can recycle it, and you use molten salt to cool that shit down.


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 10th, 2011 @ 02:19 PM Reply

kay so humanity now has: Chernobyl, Martial island, 9 mile island, BP oil spill, Hungarian "red flood" lets call it, and this. Is our stupidity really this disastrous?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 15th, 2011 @ 01:30 AM Reply

We'll have to get off this planet sooner or later. I want that to happen now!


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 15th, 2011 @ 12:10 PM Reply

At 4/9/11 03:56 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Is TEPCO going to pay compensation to Japanese fishermen, food producers, house owners, lost tourism, etc?

I have two words for you: Loss causation

I would doubt you could find anybody worth their salt who would have any easy time trying to separate the harm caused by the quake and the tsunami from that caused by the plant. If you do, I doubt you could find a judge that would believe them.

Also, BP' oil spill was 100% their fault. I am pretty sure TEPCO didn't cause the quake or the tsunami.

Tobsmth
Tobsmth
  • Member since: Feb. 26, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 16th, 2011 @ 10:37 PM Reply

At 3/13/11 10:57 PM, orangebomb wrote: Of course we all know by now about the horrors of Chernobyl, {which was a poorly built Soviet plant with no protection}

Chernobyl wasn't poorly built. It was a human error that caused the accident.

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Apr. 17th, 2011 @ 10:11 AM Reply

At 4/16/11 10:37 PM, Tobsmth wrote:
At 3/13/11 10:57 PM, orangebomb wrote: Of course we all know by now about the horrors of Chernobyl, {which was a poorly built Soviet plant with no protection}
Chernobyl wasn't poorly built. It was a human error that caused the accident.

Yes it was, mostly because it was Soviet made, which unlike the rest of the world at the time, have very little, if no safety measures to it's nuclear facilities. {i.e. no containment for spent fuel rods} Human error did play a part into it, but the plant was largely crap even before the meltdown to begin with.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
AnEarlyGuy
AnEarlyGuy
  • Member since: Jul. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Nuclear Energy Aug. 11th, 2012 @ 04:38 PM Reply

but japan said it was bad

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Nuclear Energy Aug. 11th, 2012 @ 09:05 PM Reply

Nuclear energy is pretty amazing. Theyre an almost perfect source of energy. The one at Dungeness near where
I live dumps all the hot water used in cooling into the sea and it attracts lots of birds which bathe in it so theres a bird reserve there which is pretty cool. Problem is you get idiots who know nothing who complain about it constantly.

Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Aug. 23rd, 2012 @ 02:39 AM Reply

I personally think people should consider the idea of an energy source that serves as the equivalent of nuclear energy but in turn a equivalent that dose more good then harm to the environment itself, not more harm then good to what nuclear energy dose.

My reason for this one is very simple, nuclear energy not only dose more harm then good to the environment itself but also more harm then good to mother earth as well for the planet itself is also a living being of sorts.

That said, people need to relay on things that do more good then harm then more harm then good to not only mother earth but also environment and themselves, this planet has already been tarnished enough for that reason.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Nuclear Energy Aug. 23rd, 2012 @ 11:43 AM Reply

At 8/23/12 02:39 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: My reason for this one is very simple, nuclear energy not only dose more harm then good to the environment itself but also more harm then good to mother earth as well for the planet itself is also a living being of sorts.

Exactly what harm does nuclea energy do to the environment?

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Nuclear Energy Aug. 23rd, 2012 @ 10:40 PM Reply

At 8/23/12 02:39 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: I personally think people should consider the idea of an energy source that serves as the equivalent of nuclear energy but in turn a equivalent that dose more good then harm to the environment itself, not more harm then good to what nuclear energy dose.

With what exactly? There aren't very many energy sources out there that produces more energy than nuclear, and apart from the waste, it's not really that bad for the environment at all, don't let those cooling towers fool you. Also, don't be swayed by the hippie propaganda who says that nuclear power plants kill the environment or lead to nuclear weapons, when we all know that's not the case at all.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature